THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9612 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 Between: Shaik Jain Vali and Another. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.29 & 31 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Hyderabad …Respondent ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 29 and 31 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short, 2 “BNS”) in the Crime No.70 of 2026 on the file of Mallareddigudem (Chinthalapalem) Police Station, Suryapet District. 3. Heard Mr. S.Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.05.2026, on the occasion of the Bakrid festival, the de facto complainant and his family members were proceeding on their way when they allegedly overtook a tractor being driven by accused No.1, in which accused No.2 was also travelling. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2, who were purportedly harbouring animosity towards the family of the de facto complainant owing to previous disputes, intentionally drove the tractor in such a manner as to run over the de facto complainant and his family members. Although the alleged act did not result in any loss of life, it is stated to have caused grievous injuries to certain members of the complainant's family. According to the prosecution, the act was committed with 3 the intention of causing death or, at any rate, causing such bodily injuries as were likely to endanger life. 4.2. It is further alleged that, immediately thereafter, nearly forty-five persons, including the present petitioners, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the residence of the Village Sarpanch by pelting stones and wielding axes and sticks, thereby creating panic and terror in the village. It is alleged that, apprehending further violence, the de facto complainant and his family members confined themselves to their residence. The present crime came to be registered on the basis of the report lodged in relation to the aforesaid incidents.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are wholly false, motivated, and devoid of any independent material connecting them with the alleged offences. It is contended that the petitioners have been implicated solely on account of longstanding civil and personal disputes between the parties. 5.2. Learned counsel further submits that this Court has already considered the petitions of co-accused and, by order dated in 4 Criminal Petition No. 8231 of 2026, granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. Likewise, in Criminal Petition No. 8446 of 2026, anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, and 34, and in Criminal Petition No. 8993 of 2026, anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.15 and 18. 5.3. It is submitted that the allegations attributed to the present petitioners, are substantially identical to those levelled against the aforesaid co-accused who have already been granted anticipatory bail. Invoking the principle of parity, learned counsel pleads that the present petitioners are also entitled to the same discretionary relief, particularly when they have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, undertake to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and there exists a reasonable apprehension of their arrest.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions and fairly conceded that, insofar as the remaining petitioners are concerned, the allegations attributed to them are substantially similar to those levelled against the co-5 accused in Criminal Petition Nos.8231 of 2026, 8446 of 2026, and 8993 of 2026, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. A prima facie examination of the police report indicates that the allegations against the other petitioners are general in nature. Except alleging that they formed part of the unlawful assembly, no specific overt act has been attributed to any of them individually. Their alleged role appears to be substantially identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.8231 of 2026, 8446 of 2026, and 8993 of 2026. 9. It is well settled that the principle of parity constitutes an important consideration while exercising jurisdiction, relating to anticipatory bail. Where the allegations, role, and circumstances of an accused are substantially similar to those of a co-accused who has already been granted bail, consistency in judicial approach requires that similar relief ordinarily be extended, unless 6 distinguishing features or supervening circumstances justify a different conclusion.

10. Having regard to these aspects, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping all issues open for consideration during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed on the following conditions, (a) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.29 and 31 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Mallareddigudem (Chinthalapalem) Police Station, Suryapet District on or before 16.07.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. 7 (b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Thursday between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (c) The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (e) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.

(e) The petitioners shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (f) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioners, the prosecution shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps seeking cancellation of bail. 8 (g) Upon any such breach, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider the prosecution's request for cancellation of bail on its own merits and in accordance with law. 10. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date : 02.07.2026 CHS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9612 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 CHS

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9612 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 Between: Shaik Jain Vali and Another. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.29 & 31 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Hyderabad …Respondent ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 29 and 31 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short, 2 “BNS”) in the Crime No.70 of 2026 on the file of Mallareddigudem (Chinthalapalem) Police Station, Suryapet District. 3. Heard Mr. S.Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.05.2026, on the occasion of the Bakrid festival, the de facto complainant and his family members were proceeding on their way when they allegedly overtook a tractor being driven by accused No.1, in which accused No.2 was also travelling. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2, who were purportedly harbouring animosity towards the family of the de facto complainant owing to previous disputes, intentionally drove the tractor in such a manner as to run over the de facto complainant and his family members. Although the alleged act did not result in any loss of life, it is stated to have caused grievous injuries to certain members of the complainant's family. According to the prosecution, the act was committed with 3 the intention of causing death or, at any rate, causing such bodily injuries as were likely to endanger life. 4.2. It is further alleged that, immediately thereafter, nearly forty-five persons, including the present petitioners, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the residence of the Village Sarpanch by pelting stones and wielding axes and sticks, thereby creating panic and terror in the village. It is alleged that, apprehending further violence, the de facto complainant and his family members confined themselves to their residence. The present crime came to be registered on the basis of the report lodged in relation to the aforesaid incidents.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are wholly false, motivated, and devoid of any independent material connecting them with the alleged offences. It is contended that the petitioners have been implicated solely on account of longstanding civil and personal disputes between the parties. 5.2. Learned counsel further submits that this Court has already considered the petitions of co-accused and, by order dated in 4 Criminal Petition No. 8231 of 2026, granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. Likewise, in Criminal Petition No. 8446 of 2026, anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, and 34, and in Criminal Petition No. 8993 of 2026, anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.15 and 18. 5.3. It is submitted that the allegations attributed to the present petitioners, are substantially identical to those levelled against the aforesaid co-accused who have already been granted anticipatory bail. Invoking the principle of parity, learned counsel pleads that the present petitioners are also entitled to the same discretionary relief, particularly when they have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, undertake to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and there exists a reasonable apprehension of their arrest.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions and fairly conceded that, insofar as the remaining petitioners are concerned, the allegations attributed to them are substantially similar to those levelled against the co-5 accused in Criminal Petition Nos.8231 of 2026, 8446 of 2026, and 8993 of 2026, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. A prima facie examination of the police report indicates that the allegations against the other petitioners are general in nature. Except alleging that they formed part of the unlawful assembly, no specific overt act has been attributed to any of them individually. Their alleged role appears to be substantially identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.8231 of 2026, 8446 of 2026, and 8993 of 2026. 9. It is well settled that the principle of parity constitutes an important consideration while exercising jurisdiction, relating to anticipatory bail. Where the allegations, role, and circumstances of an accused are substantially similar to those of a co-accused who has already been granted bail, consistency in judicial approach requires that similar relief ordinarily be extended, unless 6 distinguishing features or supervening circumstances justify a different conclusion.

10. Having regard to these aspects, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping all issues open for consideration during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed on the following conditions, (a) The Petitioners/Accused Nos.29 and 31 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Mallareddigudem (Chinthalapalem) Police Station, Suryapet District on or before 16.07.2026. Upon such surrender, or in the event of their arrest, the Station House Officer shall release them on bail upon each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. 7 (b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Thursday between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (c) The petitioners shall remain available for interrogation as and when required during the course of investigation and shall extend full cooperation to the investigation. (e) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the proceedings before the trial court.

(e) The petitioners shall neither directly nor indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (f) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioners, the prosecution shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps seeking cancellation of bail. 8 (g) Upon any such breach, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider the prosecution's request for cancellation of bail on its own merits and in accordance with law. 10. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date : 02.07.2026 CHS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9612 OF 2026 DATE : 02.07.2026 CHS